Id, vote for Romney with bells on over RonPaul. And I won’t EVER vote for Romney. Why? It’s really this simple.

He’s insane. Not Evil, INSANE. That freaking idiot is OK with an Iranian bomb. That freaking idiot wants to turn his back on the one and only ally we have in the mideast - Israel. Do we ‘owe” Israel? No. We don’t ‘owe’ them squat. We are SUPPOSED to be their friend and ally. THAT is why we cannot tyrn our back on them like Obama has.

There are 1000 religious arguments as well, but we don’t even need to go there. It’s my ‘opinion’ that anyone voting Romney is making a terrible mistake. That can be argued pro/con. What cannot be argued by anyone with a brain is that standing back and letting Muslim terrorists have nuclear weapons is in the best interests of the United States.

I don’t believe RP ever said he was ok with Iran having nukes. What he does day is that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in other countries to the extent that we do. One of the Founders made this same point. We have lost sight of what the framers intended.

I don’t believe RP ever said he was ok with Iran having nukes. What he does day is that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in other countries to the extent that we do. One of the Founders made this same point. We have lost sight of what the framers intended.

The press and party elites picked Romney last year. It's his "turn". Just like it was McCains.

Yea, and those same guys were telling McCain NOT to have Romney for his VP when he was considering just that, if you remember. Funny now all their reasons for Not having Romney as McCains's VP don't matter and he's THE MAN for them now!

As for the FF, We are entangled. The time to avoid the problem wholly is long passed. So now we have to deal with the results of mistakes that have been made. We are an ally of Israel, IMO, for many good reasons that have nothing to do with military or religious matters. The medical tech ALONE we co-develop is staggering. And there are a thousand more.

Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. It is not in the interest of this country to elect that type of person. He can dance and delude his supporters but one has to be willfully blind to the fact. Is he a Hitler/NAZI, no. But that’s no reason to elect him.

Back to the FF. The fact is, as I said, we are entangled. So let’s make the best of the situation. End all foreign aid completely. Put Israel spending under the DOD (for strategic purposes and to stop the libs from playing games), reinstitute ‘aid’ where needed ONLY to countries we have a strategic interest in and who in turn, support us politically, economically, technologically etc.

No more Aftica/Mid east terror/hell hole spending outside the DOD buying munitions to drop on them.

No more Eruo weenie crap they use as funding to work against us.

And NO UN PERIOD.

This message is sponsored by “The campaign to elect Norm Lenhart”. He approves this message ;)

I'm gonna repeat that if you can't do it within the GOP, you can't do it from scratch;

That is the incorrect premise here. Perot could have done it, had he not turned out to be a whack job. He was in the lead in June, starting from scratch in March. Imagine a conservative Perot, someone with money, strong beliefs, charisma and character. He rides in on a wave of disgust with both parties' candidates. Yes, that person could win, and the way has been shown. Boy did that scare the hell out of the parties, too.

In Reagan's day, there were still some states that didn't have primaries, none of them were open, New Hampshire was conservative, Iowa was conservative, the Northeast states were not marxist, they were split between moderate Republicans and Democrats. The press was liberal but not yet part of the Democrat party. In 1972, Edmund Muskie had to drop out of the Democrat race because he cried. He lost his manhood rights that day. Today, Boehner, the Republican cries if he drops a hot dog. In 1980, there was genuine fear of the Soviet Union with a Carter in the White House. Now, we are the Soviet Union, and the commies are all capitalists.

In 1980, the press didn't mind Reagan because they thought Carter would beat him so easily. He was just so stupid. They know better now, so they made sure to kill off Palin before she could ever be in that position. Same kind of connection to the people.

Reagan had a seasoned group of the nation's best advisors around him. Michael Deaver, the guy who fixed CIA, Jean Kirkpatrick, William Clark, Weinberger, Ed Meese, many others. His kitchen cabinet from California days, people who would raise money and provide advice.

It would be exceedingly difficult to duplicate the help that Reagan had, and impossible to recreate the conditions that allowed him to break through to the nomination against the establishment.

FYI, I worked for a Republican Senator in the early 1980s and I got my sister a job at the RNC, where she worked for about 5 years. I know how it ran back then, and I have watched how it changed since then. The elites learned their lesson, and have not given any conservative a chance since.

If you keep accepting this need to reform from within, our next nominee will be Jeb. Then after that, it will be some other loser. I can't call them RINOs, because it turns out, THEY are the Republicans, not us. Then Christie in '20. Followed by that half-Mexican Bush in 2024. By 2028, we may as well be Mexico.

512
posted on 04/16/2012 8:01:43 PM PDT
by Defiant
(If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)

I support your ‘campaign’ :). I agree we need to cut our aid to other countries if for no other reason than we are beyond broke ourselves. Ron Paul is a flawed individual but I see him as the only anti-establishment candidate that would really make the really big and tough fiscal changes this country needs. I know he is anti-Semitic but his policies wold be move favorable to Israel than Obama’s are right now, at least that’s how I see it from my armchair.

Have we become so hard-hearted as a nation that we can no longer differentiate between Good and Evil?.....This is the Crux of the matter, its really quite simple.

Yes, I do think that's just where this nation is at...and has been for some years now........................ Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and... 'turn away from them'.... For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites;... and by their 'smooth and flattering speech' they 'deceive' the hearts of the unsuspecting. ....(NAS, Romans 16:17-18)

How ever easy you say it would be to do a third party, it would much much easier within the party. And a lot quicker.

Whatever you say about Perot and Reagan applies within the party. And if you have a ‘new’ party, you still have to continue to do it there. It’s a never-ending fight.

It’s the same fight, the same thing, the same people, the same work, staff, money, goals, the same electorate, etc. etc. The only difference is you don’t have to do all the stuff you have to do with a new party.

If you can’t do it within the party, you can’t do it with a third party. And there’s no good reason to. It just makes no logical sense.

I’ll definately give you that (better than O for Israel). I actually like a lot of his domestic stuff, all BS aside. But his Foreign policy just turns my stomach.

Last night I sat back for a couple hours and reevaluated this whole mess and I decided that I’m more PO’d off at the RNC/GOP than I am at Romney/Paul et all. They are who and what they are.

And of course I’m far from the first to say it, but the more I think about the fools that got us here, the pore pathetic the whole charade really is. Gust as a general comment for all, spend a couple hours ‘out of the box’ so to speak. Most of us remember the Reagan years well enough. Do a direct comparison to the ideas, concepts, beliefs of the day, to what we deal with now. Sure it wasn’t romantic wine and roses - there were indeed problems - but the ‘how far we have fallen’ aspect.

W talk about it all the time, but when you REALLY think about it, what it really means (note that the GOP platform is followed by who exactly in the GOP?) it’s enough to make you crazy.

You are welcome. I am glad you are so thankful. Here is some more information for you:

Whatever you say about Perot and Reagan applies within the party.

Not true at all. Perot could never in a million years have gotten the Republican nomination. And yet, had he been a conservative who ran against Bush and the two-party system because of disgust with Washington and the tax deals and the spending, etc., he could have won handily. Instead, he fell into a kooky populism and may have been simply a stalking horse for Clinton the whole time. We'll never know, but when he got out, he claimed that the Democrats had been revitalized and he was no longer needed in the race. WTH? Anyone who believed that the Dems of Bill Clinton were anything other than Fabian socialists lying to the American people was too stupid to leave the house, and I don't think Perot was that stupid.

In any event, Perot could have won, but not within the Republican party. The One We Have Been Waiting For could likewise not get the GOPe to abandon Romney, but by taking his case directly to the American people, he/she could win the race anyway.

You are so smart, all you have to do is prove me wrong by getting a conservative nominated in 2016. Check back with me when you do that. Meantime, all I have to do is find a billionaire and a brilliant candidate. I'm still looking, too. One of us is bound to be right. Or maybe we can share a cell in the gulag and argue about it there.

518
posted on 04/16/2012 8:28:30 PM PDT
by Defiant
(If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)

I don’t agree Perot could have won. And, again, if he could have, he could have won in the GOP primary. It’s the same boxing match, if he couldn’t beat Bush there, he couldn’t beat him in the big arena.

I’ll give you another example from the past of how things change. Lloyd Bentsen (D) beat George Bush (R) in Texas on the slogan “He’s (Bush) is too liberal for Texas.”

I know many places in Texas where a generation ago it was all democrats in local office, Repubs were too liberal. Today, after intelligent dedicated work, those places are very conservative and GOP. They’ve built a strong conservative GOP.

Now, your third party comes along and says: “Join our new party, leave the GOP!”

They say: “Why should we?”

“Because, the GOP is too liberal.”

“No we ain’t.”

“Well, they are in other places.”

“Then tell them to get their sh*t together and do what we did.”

Why should they jump to a new party? Why shouldn’t you do what they did instead?

Thank you for your wonderful chart! It is an eye-opening source of information for those who cannot understand true conservative’s lack of support for Romney and who perhaps do not have a full grasp of Gingrich’s platform. Will be utilizing it extensively.

520
posted on 04/16/2012 8:40:50 PM PDT
by MWestMom
(The heart of the wise inclines to the right, But the heart of the fool to the left. Ecclesiastes10:2)

How ever easy you say it would be to do a third party, it would much much easier within the party. And a lot quicker. Whatever you say about Perot and Reagan applies within the party. And if you have a new party, you still have to continue to do it there. Its a never-ending fight. Its the same fight, the same thing, the same people, the same work, staff, money, goals, the same electorate, etc. etc. The only difference is you dont have to do all the stuff you have to do with a new party. If you cant do it within the party, you cant do it with a third party. And theres no good reason to. It just makes no logical sense.

Hmmmm, I used say the same thing, almost word-for-word, over-and-over, on this board.

Now?...not so much.

Sure the same problems that happened in the Republican party would happen in a third party over time.

Same electorate, same media and same back-stabbing trolls sabatoging a party.

“Believes in founding principles and has best conservative record to back it up”

BWA HA HA HA HA HA...no, really...BWA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA...

This is the same Newt that in his 2008 book “Real Change” endorsed an individual mandate for health insurance.

This is the same Newt that loves anchor babies and chain immigration.

This is ol’ Nancy huggin’, global warming Newt.

This is the same Newt that screwed around on his sick wife. Er, sick wives. And this last affair was during the middle of the IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON, but he could not see past his own johnson to understand the damage this affair’s revelation could do. His instincts are all about Newt. Nothing about the Constitution. Nothing but Newt. Your list only makes the case against him further, in its damning with ridiculous praise for that pompous clown of a candidate, in its obvious failure to list his most glaring flaws.

No, I wouldn’t vote for Newt if he were the ONLY candidate running. If a man will screw over someone he’s pledged before God to be faithful to, why would he have any trouble screwing his constituents? Why wouldn’t he just flip-flop again, every bit as bad as Romney has?

527
posted on 04/16/2012 8:55:35 PM PDT
by LibertarianInExile
(If Newt is a conservative, then a dingleberry is a diamond.)

I think you are wrong on all of your points, and it appears you want to repeat them ad nauseum. Your anecdote about Texas seems contrived and counterintuitive. I think Texas was one of the states where Perot was most popular, even though GHW Bush represented Houston in Congress. You talk like they are hayseeds who couldn't read the paper and decide to vote for someone other than Mitt.

Make you next post, and then, please assume I have disagreed with it, and then you can make another after that. Assume I disagree with that one, too.

528
posted on 04/16/2012 9:01:26 PM PDT
by Defiant
(If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)

Well they also came together against Newt...Dole, Christie, Delay, McCain and a host of them charged about the same time when Newt was leading....they are one organized bunch of hoodlums hanging onto their “dream candidate” Romney.
They’ aren’t about ready to let Newt take this....and if he rises again they’ll be strong arming and calling in their chips on any who might come out and endorse Newt....

They’re an evil bunch they are! ..and why so many call politicians evil.

So we wind up with a milquetoast duffus, like McCain who handed the election to Obama, who played by the Marquess of Queensberry rules while Obam was pulling out the brass knuckles!... And you somehow imagine Romneyboy or Paulnut might have a chance of taking on the Obama Machine? Oh yea, right....

I honestly dont care about what happened in Newts marriage..... God certainly gave King David a green light so I'd certainly have no problem believing Newt too was forgiven.....further he spoke openly about his repentance...I've never once heard Romney do so...the most you hear from him,on all the childrens blood he has on his hands, is.."I made a mistake"...and even then it certainly wasn't and isn't believable.

Newt has gone through three marriages. Big deal. At least he married them.

But I dont want to marry him... I want to vote for a candidate that will go after Obama with rhetorical claws and fangs,.. brass knuckles and switchblades.... I want a candidate that will eviscerate him and stuff his guts down his lying throat...... I want to elect a president who will save my country for my children and their children  and for me, for however long I have left on this Earth.

Additionally....Newt Gingrich was the single most effective Speaker of the House we have had in our lifetime and we lost BIG when they hounded him out of office..... I cannot think of a single individual in this country more suited to be the kind of president we need to move this country away from where it's headed......not one. (Borwrd)

Glad to see someone agree with me. Sorta. :) But: Why wouldnt you have the same problems and fights to begin with? Same disagreement on candidates, etc. Except you have to build a whole new apparatus in the meantime.

Fights within a party are okay, just as long as there aren't saboteurs working to take advantage of the disagreements and there isn't a Romney-type waiting in the wings.

It all depends on what would happen faster.

Good supporters moving toward a third party or saboteurs and the media moving in to destroy the third party.

(Fox News) - PHOENIX — Mitt Romney will address the Republican National Committee meeting of state party chairmen this Friday in Phoenix, where he will stake his claim to the GOP nomination and call upon party leaders to unite, FOX News Channel reported.

The meeting will be attended by more than 40 of the RNC’s 50 state GOP chairmen, along with 200 additional officials, activists and political professionals as they gear up for the fall campaign to oust President Barack Obama.

"So we wind up with a milquetoast duffus, like McCain who handed the election to Obama, who played by the Marquess of Queensberry rules while Obam was pulling out the brass knuckles!... And you somehow imagine Romneyboy or Paulnut might have a chance of taking on the Obama Machine? Oh yea, right...."

I'm not voting for Romney, but I sure won't pull the lever for Newt, and I've said that since before Iowa.

"I honestly dont care about what happened in Newts marriage..... God certainly gave King David a green light so I'd certainly have no problem believing Newt too was forgiven.....further he spoke openly about his repentance"

Let me know when God speaks up for Newt and I'll consider him saved. Until then, I have only Newt's record to consider, and he's only as repentant as a john caught in a cathouse.

"I've never once heard Romney do so...the most you hear from him,on all the childrens blood he has on his hands, is.."I made a mistake"...and even then it certainly wasn't and isn't believable."

Preach to the choir, reverend! I'm not voting for him, either.

"Newt has gone through three marriages. Big deal. At least he married them."

Would it be okay if he married them all at once, so that he could get the FLDS vote, too? A pretty low bar you have for your candidates, that they can be moral degenerates AND flip floppers as long as you like how they talk--this week. John Huntsman is probably kicking himself for not being more of a smartass to the media, since maybe you and other suckers would be shilling for him now instead of crapweasel Newt.

"But I dont want to marry him...

No, you just want conservatives to jump in bed with him and get as screwed as Newt's ex-wives.

I want to vote for a candidate that will go after Obama with rhetorical claws and fangs,.. brass knuckles and switchblades.... I want a candidate that will eviscerate him and stuff his guts down his lying throat...... I want to elect a president who will save my country for my children and their children  and for me, for however long I have left on this Earth."

Great! Let me know which Newt that is, because next week he'll be sucking up to Pelosi and pimpin' for global warming.

"Additionally....Newt Gingrich was the single most effective Speaker of the House we have had in our lifetime and we lost BIG when they hounded him out of office..... I cannot think of a single individual in this country more suited to be the kind of president we need to move this country away from where it's headed......not one. (Borwrd)"

Pshaw. The most effective speaker we've had in my lifetime was Tom DeLay and you'd know it if you had a clue about the power of local politics and building a deep bench. Newt forgot about that after he got that nice comfy office--the only thing Newt did after he got the Speaker's chair was ride coattails, piss off voters and candidates with his lecturing, and screw around with Callista. Newt's assuming the speakership set the GOP backm and his leaving brought it a resurgence, at least where political wherewithal was concerned (the GOP has never gotten back to conservative governance, and won't until conservatives run the party apparatus instead of the current crop of RNC hacks).

541
posted on 04/16/2012 9:53:01 PM PDT
by LibertarianInExile
(If Newt is a conservative, then a dingleberry is a diamond.)

Romney still has to win an additional 483 delegates before he can ‘technically claim the title of the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate.’ So how can he lay claim without them?????

The next slate of primaries are scheduled for April 24th, ....when a total of 231 delegates will be up for grabs across five states. ......After that, the primary schedule picks up again,... with Indiana,... North Carolina and West Virginia ...holding their primaries on May 8th, followed by ..Oregon and.. Nebraska on the 15th, and ..Arkansas and.. Kentucky on the 22nd.

A total of 507 delegates will be at stake in those 12 contests.

With Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul still in the race, its possible- even likely- that Romney will not win 100 percent of those 507 delegates.

So how can he go ahead and lay claim to being the Republican Candidate at the NCR meeting?????

Now we’re not...this Romney’s making a chess move now..but I don’t see how he can “officially” claim the winner without the candidates??? This is simply a move to stop this from going to convention...or Santorums’s giving him his delegates..and perhaps even Newt.

I will be truly done with this race if they’re giving it up now. Oh I’ll chat about it now and then...but I’m done if they’re all swinging for Romney.

No we’re not...this Romney’s making a chess move now..but I don’t see how he can “officially” claim the winner without the candidates??? This is simply a move to stop this from going to convention...or Santorums’s giving him his delegates..and perhaps even Newt.

I will be truly done with this race if they’re giving it up now. Oh I’ll chat about it now and then...but I’m done if they’re all swinging for Romney.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.